Delhi District Court
State vs . Chiranji Lal & Anr. on 28 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL : MM09:
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr.
FIR No.90/2010
PS Defence Colony
U/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC
Date of Institution of Case : 01.07.2011
Judgment Reserved for : 03.09.2019
Date of Judgment : 28.09.2019
1. The date of offence : 11.07.2010
2. Name of the complainant : HC Rajender Singh
3. Name of the accused, parentage : 1. Chiranji Lal S/o Sh. Har Sahai,
& residential address Village Himgotia District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
2. Vinod Solanki @ Akash S/o Sh.
Vijay Dilip Singh, R/o Village
Wazirabad Gali No.6/7, Sangam
Vihar, Delhi110084.
4. Offence complained of or proved : 420/468/471/34 IPC
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Acquitted
7. Date of judgment/order : 28.09.2019
State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
1 The case of the prosecution is that accused persons forged a receipt number 0292033 for deposition of fine of Rs.200/ in the court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, the then Ld. MM, court no.20A, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Thereafter, the said forged receipt was used by the accused persons to cheat the traffic police officials of Kalkaji Traffic Circle to release a bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. Charge sheet for the offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC was filed against accused Chiranji Lal. Thereafter the first supplementary charge sheet was filed without arraying any other accused person. Then second supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash. Charge for the offence u/s 468/34 IPC was framed against accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash and for the offence u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC was framed against accused Chiranji Lal vide order dated 31.03.2018. the charge was amended vide order dated 15.09.2018 due to typographical mistake in the registration number of vehicle in the charge framed on 31.03.2018 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2 The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses to prove its case.
2.1 PW1 HC Sriniwas P.C. was posted as Constable at ACP South East (Traffic Circle) Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi on 05.08.2010 and he handed over the documents of bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993 to IO.
2.2 PW2 Sh. Dinesh Yadav was the registered owner of bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. On 16.04.2010, he sold the said bus to Vikas Yadav vide cash receipt of Rs.2.50 lacs Ex.PW2/B, delivery receipt Ex.PW2/C, form number 29 State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 2 of 11 Ex.CW2/D, form no.30 Ex.PW2/E and certificate Ex.PW2/F. He handed over these documents to police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. 2.3 PW3 Inspector Satyender Kumar Singh deposed that on 09.07.2010, he prepared challan against bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. On 15.07.2010 MHC Kalkaji Traffic Circle HC Rajesh produced a receipt Ex.PW3/B before him. On the perusal of the said receipt a suspicion was raised and after verification it was found forged.
2.4 PW4 Sh. Satvir Singh is the witness of the documents executed between Dinesh Yadav and Vikas Yadav for sale of bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993.
2.5 PW5 Sh. Rohit Rawat, was posted as Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the then Ld. MM, Patiala House Court on 26.08.2010. He handed over the documents i.e. receipt number 0292033 Ex.PW5/B, receipt no. 306257 Ex.PW5/C challan no.130423 Ex.PW3/A, copy of order dated 16.07.2010 to police officials which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A 2.6 PW6 SI Surender Mohan was posted as Duty Officer at PS Defence Colony on 20.10.2010. He has endorsed the rukka vide DD No.17A Ex.PW6/A and registered the present FIR Ex.PW6/B. 2.7 PW7 Retd SI Devender Singh is IO of the present case. He deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He seized the documents from traffic circle office, Sadiq Nagar vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He seized the documents from the court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the then Ld. MM vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 3 of 11 He seized the documents as produced by Dinesh Yadav vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He seized the documents as produced by Vikas Yadav vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. On 18.11.2010 he arrested accused Chiranji Lal vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/D. He also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW7/E. Thereafter, he also arrested accused Vinod @ Akash vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/E. He obtained the specimen signature of accused Vinod @ Akash Ex.PW7/F. He obtained the original receipt number 02920300 from judicial record for obtaining handwriting expert opinion which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/H. 2.8 PW8 Sh. Vikas Yadav deposed that he had purchased the bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993 from Dinesh Yadav on 16.04.2010 and he had executed an agreement Ex.PW8/A to run the bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993 in partnership with accused Chiranji Lal. He produced Chiranji Lal and Sanjay in PS Defence Colony in December 2010. He is witness of arrest of accused Chiranji Lal vide arrest memos Ex.PW7/C and personal search memo Ex.PW7/D. The said partnership agreement with Chiranji Lal was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. 2.9 PW9 Sh. Yogesh Kumar is a witness of agreement Ex.PW8/A executed between Vikas Yadav and Chiranji Lal. 2.10 PW10 Sh. Sarvestham Kumar, Junior Forensic Assistant Chemical Examiner, FSL Rohini, deposed that he received the documents from FSL Rohini in open condition for examination. He prepared report Ex.PW10/A. After examination of questioned State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 4 of 11 documents and sample signature of Vinod Solanki @ Akash. 2.11 PW11 SI Prem Singh deposed that he collected FSL Report dated 05.08.2015 from FSL Rohini and submitted in the court alongwith supplementary charge sheet.
2.12 PW12 SI Amit deposed that he filed supplementary charge sheet alongwith FSL Report dated 30.10.2017.
2.13 PW13 Sh. Rajkumar, the then Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, the then Ld. MM Patiala House Courts, produced the copy of duty roaster for the month of July 2010 Ex.PW13/1. He produced the STR register for disposing off the challan of vehicle number DL1PA4993, the relevant page of STR is Ex.PW13/2. He also produced the receipt Ex.PW13/C for deposition of fine in the court.
2.14 PW14 Sh. Prasenjit Sahai failed to produce the summoned record pertaining to receipt number 0292033 and 306257. 2.15 PW15 Sh. Ramesh Saini produced the counter foil of fine book from serial number 306201 to 306400 and counter foil of fine book containing receipts from serial number 0292001 to 0292200 the proved the receipt number 306257 as Ex.PW15/A and receipt number 0292033 as Ex.PW15/B. 2.16 PW16 Sh. Rajani Chhatwal was posted as Reader in the court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, the then Ld. MM Patiala House Court on 11.07.2010 and proved that she prepared the receipt number 0306257 for disposal of vehicle number DL1PA4993. 3 After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 5 of 11 the accused persons to which they stated that he have been falsely implicated in the present case and denied the allegations made against them.
4 Sh. Chander Vir was examined as DW1 and Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta was examined as DW2.
5 I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State that prosecution has proved its case with the help of oral and documentary evidence produced on record.
6 On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the basic ingredient required for the offence of cheating and forgery. There is no eyewitness to prove the allegations against the accused persons. The FSL report filed on record is a weak piece of evidence because admitted signature of accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash were never procured by the IO.
7 It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution.
8 The germane of all the allegations levelled against the accused is that accused persons forged the receipt number 0292033 for getting the release the bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993 from the office of traffic police, Delhi. To prove its allegations, the prosecution has examined various witnesses but none of them is eyewitness. The case of State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 6 of 11 prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 9 On 10.07.2010, traffic police prepared a challan under offence 66(1)/192A, 3/181, 130/177 MV Act against Sanjay who was driving bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993 The said person namely Sanjay was convicted by Sh. Gagandeep Singh, the then Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts vide STR entry on 11.07.2010. The copy of relevant page of STR register Ex.PW13/B which bears the signature of driver Sanjay only and does not bear the signature of owner of bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. A fine of Rs.5500/ was imposed upon driver Sanjay and a fine of Rs.500/ was imposed upon the owner of bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. The fine was deposited in the court vide receipt number 0306257 Ex.PW15/A in the court.
10 It has been alleged that accused Chiranji Lal went to office of Traffic Police, Sadiq Nagar to get release the bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993 and produced the forged receipt Ex.PW5/B before HC Rajender. HC Rajender produced the said receipt before PW3 Inspector Satyender Kumar. PW3 Inspector Satyender Kumar suspected that the said receipt produced by accused Chiranji Lal is forged. PW3 Inspector Satyender Kumar sent a letter to concerned court through MHC, Kalkaji Traffic Circle for verification of the said receipt. PW3 Inspector Satyender Kumar was informed by MHC, Kalkaji Traffic Circle that the said receipt was found forged after the verification from the court and the court has ordered to register an FIR vide order dated 16.07.2010. 11 In the order dated 16.07.2010, it has been mentioned that driver Sanjay and owner Dinesh had appeared for adjudication of challan qua the bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. There is no mention in the State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 7 of 11 order dated 16.07.2010 that any one of accused persons Chiranji Lal or Vinod Solanki had appeared before the court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, the then Ld. MM for adjudication of said challan Ex.PW3/A. The prosecution could not examine HC Rajender due to his death before whom accused Chiranji Lal allegedly produced the forged receipt Ex. PW5/B for release of bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. The IO did not obtain the sample signature of accused Chiranji Lal nor procured his admitted signature to compare the signature of accused Chiranji Lal on forged receipt Ex.PW5/B. There is no other evidence except his disclosure statement which is inadmissible u/s 25 Indian Evidence Act, available on record against accused Chiranji Lal.
12 To prove the allegations of forgery against accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash, prosecution has relied upon the disclosure statement of accused Chiranji Lal Ex.PW7/E and FSL report Ex.PW10/D. The disclosure statement / confession of coaccused before police is not admissible in evidence 13 In the case of S.P.S. Rathore vs C.B.I & Anr, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2010, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"With regard to the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellantaccused that the signature of Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum was forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms. Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 8 of 11 writing being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined i FSL n a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
14 In view of above observations made in the case of S.P.S. Rathore Vs CBI (supra), the expert opinion qua handwriting is a weak evidence until and unless it is not corroborated by independent evidence. In this case, the investigating agency had obtained expert opinion twice. In first FSL report dated 04.08.2015 Ex.PW11/D1, it was opined that "it could not be possible to express any opinion regarding authorship or otherwise of the read enclosed questioned writing Mark Q1 and Q2 (on forged receipt Ex.PW5/B) on the basis of specimen writing supplied for comparison. Further, it can be made that is some admitted writings of the contemporary period of the person concerned are supplied for comparison".
15 In the second FSL report Ex.PW10/A, it was opined that the person who wrote the red enclose writing, stamp and Mark S11 to S29 State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 9 of 11 (sample) also wrote red enclose writing similarly stamped and Mark Q1, Q3, Q4. The Mark Q1, Q3, Q4 on receipt Ex.PW5/B are words "DL1PA4993", "11/07/10" and "13042324" respectively. The second attempt made by the investigating agency to obtain the handwriting expert opinion merely by producing more specimen handwriting / signature of accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash but no efforts were made by the investigating agency to obtain the admitted signature of accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash as asked by FSL in its first report for authenticated opinion to prove the handwriting of accused Vinod Solanki on forged receipt Ex.PW5/B. The sample handwriting of accused Vinod Solanki @ Akash was similar as produced before the FSL on both occasion but on first occasion the FSL was unable to render any opinion while on second opinion rendered its opinion. This makes both the report inconsistence. The court is of the opinion that these words Mark Q1, Q3, Q4 are limited words for comparison of handwriting of accused especially in the absence of admitted handwriting of the concerned person. 16 The Hon'bal Apex Court of India in the case of Alamgir Vs State, NCT of Delhi, AIR2003SC282, observed as follows:
" This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, director or circumstantial."
17 In view of this discussion, the FSL report not be relied upon State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 10 of 11 without corroboration from independent cogent and reliable evidence. 18 It is well settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. But in this case, in view of above discussion and after appreciation the evidence, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances / events to prove the guilt of accused persons that they forged the receipt number 0292033 Ex.PW5/B and used the same to cheat the traffic officials to get release the bus bearing registration number DL1PA4993. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Hence, both accused Chiranji Lal and Vinod Solanki @ Akash are acquitted for the offence u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP GAGANDEEP JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
Announced and signed in 2019.10.03
14:10:46 +0530
the open court on 28.09.2019
(Gagandeep Jindal)
MM09/SED/ND/28.09.2019
State vs. Chiranji Lal & Anr FIR No.90/2010; PS Defence Colony Page 11 of 11